A Question For James Risen

James Risen, NY Times reporter and book author, has hit the talk show circuit to promote State of War: The Secret History of the C.I.A. and the Bush Administration.  Mr. Risen and his book have been all over the news, of course, since it was Messrs. Risen and Lichtblau who broke the "Bush Spied" story about the warrantless NSA eavesdropping back in mid December.

Mark Finkelstein caught him with Katie Couric, and my question almost came up - Mr. Risen compared his own sources quite favorably with the Plame leakers, assuring us that his own leakers acted in the highest and purest of patriotic motives (I am extrapolating a bit - hyperbole and the moderation thereof did not make the final cut for my superlative, world-busting, must-read New Year's Resolutions).

Well, my question - since Mr. Risen is an authority on the motivations of the Plame leakers, is he also sitting on a Bob Woodward style revelation of his own?  Did Mr. Risen actually get a leak from an Administration official linking Wilson's wife to the CIA and the Wilson trip to Niger?

One might almost wonder why he didn't - Bob Woodward received a leak, quite possibly from Richard Armitage at the State Department, when he wasn't even looking for it.

Judy Miller got a leak from Lewis Libby, and perhaps others, although her memory was foggy.

Andrea Mitchell said, to her own eventual discomfiture, that among journalists who cover the intelligence community and were probing the Niger story, Ms. Wilson's CIA connection was "widely known".  Surely Mr. Risen is a member of this club.

And over at the Times, Nick Kristof told his readers that "Mrs. Wilson's intelligence connections became known a bit in Washington as she rose in the CIA and moved to State Department cover".

And in this June 19 2003 story, Mr. Risen buried a mention of the Niger-Iraq-uranium controversy in the last paragraph.  Of course, the Times was on this with Nick Kristof's May and June columns, and a June 13 editorial, but one hopes that at least a few of the Times reporters on their Washington desk were exerting themselves to keep pace with Walter Pincus of the WaPo, who had a big breakout story on June 12.

Well, has anyone asked Mr. Risen, or the other NY Times reporters if they received as leak about Valerie Plame (or Wilson's wife - no Russertian subterfuges here)?

Oddly, the answer seems to be yes, and the answer evokes a comedy classic.  Here is the NY Times describing the scene as they try to come to grips with the Judy Miller story:

In the fall of 2003, after The Washington Post reported that "two top White House officials disclosed Plame's identity to at least six Washington journalists," Philip Taubman, Ms. Abramson's successor as Washington bureau chief, asked Ms. Miller and other Times reporters whether they were among the six. Ms. Miller denied it.

"The answer was generally no," Mr. Taubman said. Ms. Miller said the subject of Mr. Wilson and his wife had come up in casual conversation with government officials, Mr. Taubman said, but Ms. Miller said "she had not been at the receiving end of a concerted effort, a deliberate organized effort to put out information."

Lacking a soundtrack, we have emphasized the punchline - "Generally no"?  Mostly dead means partly alive, yes?  So what does ""generally no" mean?  If seven reporters did not get a Plame leak and one did, is the answer "generally no"?  How about six versus two?  What would it take to produce a swing to "generally yes"?

C'mon - Judy got one or more tips; in his Oct 2003 column, Nick Kristof is practically confessing that he knew the Plame backstory (Or if his confessional style does not shine through to you, see "UNRELENTING" at the bottom of this post).  As Mr. Risen prowls the talk show circuit, some one who wants to make a bit of news can ask him a simple question - did Mr. Risen receive a leak linking Wilson, his wife, and the CIA prior to the publication of Bob Novak's famous July 14 2003 column?

Bonus follow-ups sure to provoke a no-comment - is he aware of any Timers reporters other than Judy Miller to receive such a leak?  Does he have any reaction to Andrea Mitchell's assertion that among reporters on the intelligence beat, Ms. Wilson's CIA link was "widely known"?

We can but ask.

MORE:  As to the motives of the Plame leakers - please.    A link-free recap would be this:

Rove to Novak - "I heard that, too".

Rove to Matt Cooper of Time - a few sentences on background, warning with eerie prescience that Wilson lacked credibility.

Libby to Cooper - "I heard that, too" (from other reporters, if anyone cares to rehash Libby's version).

Libby to Miller - part of a broader chat, in her words.

Someone to Pincus - an attempt to steer him away from Wilson, not slam Wilson.  More eerie prescience?

Someone to Novak - Novak's versions may have evolved, but Novak does claim he was looking for dirt on Wilson to fill out his July 14 "who picked this obvious Democrat for a possibly politically sensitive assignment?" column that followed his July 10 "who picked this obvious Democrat for a possibly politically sensitive assignment" column.

Someone to Woodward - an incidental part of a larger story.

Sure, sure - all that simply proves how subtle these Bushmen are.  Can't fool Risen.

UPDATE:  TIME magazine has read the book and talked to Mr. Risen:

But the book also argues that the NSA's eavesdropping policy shows the extent to which the war on terrorism has spurred the intelligence community to flout legal conventions at home and abroad. Risen's chief target is the CIA, where, he argues, institutional dysfunction and feckless leadership after 9/11 led to intelligence breakdowns that continue to haunt the U.S. Though much of State of War covers ground that is broadly familiar, the book is punctuated with a wealth of previously unreported tidbits about covert meetings, aborted CIA operations and Oval Office outbursts. The result is a brisk, if dispiriting, chronicle of how, since 9/11, the "most covert tools of national-security policy have been misused."

However...

What State of War lacks is a prescription for what to do about it. Despite the intelligence failures documented in the book, Risen concludes that as a result of the U.S.'s counterterrorist efforts, "al-Qaeda now seems to lack the power to conduct another 9/11." The question facing policymakers is how to balance that apparent gain in security with its attendant costs--to the military in Iraq, to civil liberties at home and to the U.S.'s standing in the world.

The Washington Times lays out the Democratic strategy for self-immolation:

Democrats on Capitol Hill are drafting a strategy to attack the Bush administration and Republicans as having little regard for the privacy of Americans.

Reactions range from worried to gleeful:

Democratic aides say privately that while it remains a high goal to win control over the House or Senate in the November elections, they think the issue will resonate with voters.
    Centrist Democrats, however, warn that such a strategy could backfire.
    "I think when you suggest that civil liberties are just as much at risk today as the country is from terrorism, you've gone too far if you leave that impression," Michael O'Hanlon, a national security analyst at the Brookings Institution who advises Democrats on defense issues, told The Washington Times last week.
    "I get nervous when I see the Democrats playing this [civil liberties] issue out too far," he said.
    But Democrats, such as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, have been full speed ahead on the new strategy. The California Democrat has been critical of Mr. Bush's eavesdropping policy, portions of the Patriot Act and the war in Iraq.
    Like Mr. O'Hanlon, Republicans are doubtful the issue will take hold.
    "Nancy Pelosi and [Senate Minority Leader] Harry Reid never miss an opportunity to drive the train right off the tracks and remind voters why their reluctance to trust Capitol Hill Democrats on the important issues is justifiable," said Kevin Madden, spokesman for Rep. Tom DeLay, the Texas Republican who stepped down as House majority leader to fight charges he violated federal campaign-finance laws.
    Voters, Republicans say, will agree with Mr. Bush's decision to use extraordinary efforts to thwart terrorist plots and already support the Patriot Act as an effective tool in the fight against terrorists.
    "Essentially, Democratic leaders themselves have exposed the weak underbelly of the Democratic platform," said Mr. Madden, noting that key Democrats such as Mrs. Pelosi have advocated an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

Scott Ott has more but he does not say to us that extremism in the defense of something or other is maybe OK.

STILL MORE:  A Rasmussen poll from Dec 28 finds public support for the NSA program; the questions are here:

Should the National Security Agency be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States?  (64% yes, 23% no)

(b) Is President Bush the first President to authorize a program for intercepting telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States? (26% yes, 48% no)

Comments

[Sue]

Yeah!!!!!

[Kate]

Well, just like the Wizard of Oz, throughout the Plame story, the MSM let us know there were good leakers and bad leakers.

Now they helpfully let us know that there are good leaks and bad leaks.

The false narrative has taken hold. A Newsweek reporter on MSNBC mentioned the fiction that Plame's name was leaked for retaliation, that a whistleblower was being punished as opposed to the good leak, the Risen leak. I almost threw something at the TV. How can he get away with this bad reporting and analysis.

[Gary Maxwell]

What no Rider?

[maryrose]

Kate,
As always you have hit the nail on the head. Good versus bad. However , MSNBC is off and running with the Abramoff story saying as many as 20 officials /or aids will be under scrutiny but both dems and repubs will come under fire. Bob Ney is preparing for a news conference.
On the subject at hand I will wait for these questions Tom has raised to be answered so that we can finally get to the bottom of this Plame mess.

[danking]

Welcome back slacker. LOL!

Hope you had a great holiday break.

[Kate]

Maryrose, I hate bribe takers of both parties. I think it's insidious, they start to believe that they deserve the occasional favor, perk, and before you know it's serious fraud, conflict of interest.

That's what gets me so mad about the Plame nonsense, it was so minor compared to the real scandals out there and the media played it like it was the worst scandal in years. Reading TM's post and the actual comments the evil leakers made to the reporters, makes me angry.

Can Fitz go home now.

[Dwilkers]

Welcome back TM, we missed you!

I watched Risen on the Today Show this morning, and found myself wondering about his little 'good leaks bad leaks' riff.

Wondering if he really believes it that is. Does he, do they? Or is that what they hope their viewers and readers will believe?

/shrug

[Les Nessman]

"Can Fitz go home now."

Hell, no. Not until he investigates these NSA leaks; let's see how many reporters go to jail over this.

[Kate]

I know the good leakers...they are the ones that Fitz lets the media protect.

And I know the good leaks. How? Well, the journalist/book seller tells me which ones are good. He knows, he can tell and he tells us.

[Kate]

I wonder if the good leakers in the Plame case and the noble leakers to Risen are some of the same people.

[kim]

Sing to Humoresque.

Over at Jay Rosen's show they haven't the first clue that Hurricane Bushtrina is about here.
==============================================

[maryrose]

Plame nonsense is minor and Fitz belatedly realizes it but has no choice but to move forward and damn the torpedoes. I'm annoyed at how he keeps jerking us around about Rove. Either {blank} or get off the pot.

[larwyn]

Hope you catch up fast.

Waiting for your take on the proposed class action lawsuit against the NYT's et al for reckless endangerment.

[Kate]

Poor Fitz...he is so serious and earnest. Then, those idiot whistleblowers go out and make him look the fool. They pose for pictures in Vanity Fair, they pose for a silly picture in Time Magazine and then, what a coincidence, they just happen upon a reporter in the airport and while Valerie hides in the background the little one says that his daddy is famous and his mommy is a superspy.

All together now, ahhhh....what an adorable family.

[sonicfrog]

Way off topic.

If you are using ANY version of Windows (XP, ME, NT, 2000, 98, 95, 3.1), you need to download and apply the SECURITY PATCH featured in the green box. There is a huge vulnerability in the coding that lets you view pictures using windows. All web browsers and e-mail clients will at various times access this code to perform different imaging tasks. This is a BIG FAT SECURITY RISK that can't be blocked with a firewall or anti-virus software. There is more info HERE.

This will disable the Microsoft Picture Viewer feature, but there is a safer alternative HERE.

PS. If the Hyperlinks don't work, here are the URL's from above:

http://www.grc.com/sn/notes-020.htm

http://www.f-secure.com/weblog/archives/archive-012006.html#00000761

http://www.irfanview.com/

PPS. If you are using either Mac OSX or any of the Linux OS's, you can smile and go on your merry way 'cause this, as is usually the case, does not affect you.

[clarice]

Very good work--Now, let's take odds that none of the talking heads has a production assistant clever enough to check out this site before interviewing Risen..

[maryrose]

Wilsons- Welcome to LaLa Land! You'll fit in great here. Everyone here is an actor and plays their parts well. You already have experience in doing that. Plus you love attention,the cameras et al. Me. Demille, they are ready for their close-up.

[kim]

They won't ask. Who asked Kerry about the Swifties? That's the real corruption; someone will know it's a good question, and not ask it.

Don't rock the boat, baby.
=========================

[Gabriel Sutherland]

clarice: Everyone should know that if you want to get a good question to a host you never go to a production assistant. They only talk to the host for a few minutes. If you want to plant a question you go to the host's hair stylist. They have a solid 30 minutes with the host. :)

[owl]

Welcome back TM.

Post your article link here clarice. I enjoyed it (bad on posting links).

Kim, I never find a clue at Rosen's.

Mark Finkelstein "Time and again, Risen defended his sources as having the "purest" and "best" motives, springing entirely from their concern for the rule of law."

I bet, and it sure sounds like Mac's VIPS could be among the dirty dozen. Sen Schumer knows a lot about the leakers' motives.

What fun to see if they can collect waivers from (almost) a dirty dozen.

[clarice]

*smacking palm to forehead* Of course, Gabriel, forgive my ignorance.

[joe mealyus]

Maybe "generally no" means 6 or 7 said "no" and the other 1 or 2 said something like "no comment" or "point that thing somewhere else." It doesn't necessarily imply anyone said "yes."

[clarice]

Okay, Owl:
it is to laugh

[topsecretk9]

Centrist Democrats, however, warn that such a strategy could backfire.
DUH.

Also, was I the only one slightly curious about the date of Mr. Rockefeller's "Note to Self" .... July 17th 2003????? UM ...3 days after Novak's Column-same day as Coopers'... you'll recall that ROCK was one of the primary Senators cheerleading Joe Wilson and his infamous Memo and Wilson acknowledged that he informed Dem Senator"S" of his plan, I mean trip...and I am sure there are other peculiar co-inky-dincts as well....

Oh here is one, the confusion on when Risen had his story...via Harry Schaffer(sp) there is speculation that Risen was ready for print 14 months before...about the time of the Senate Intell Report.

[clarice]

td, you are so clever..If I were DCI I'd have you on speed dial!

[topsecretk9]

Here is a paragraph from the Post

"John D. Rockefeller IV, a wealthy man representing a poor state, had been the top Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee for six months when he sat down to a secret briefing on July 17, 2003. What he heard alarmed him so much that immediately afterward he wrote two identical letters, by hand, expressing his concerns.

He sent one to Vice President Cheney and placed the other -- as he pointedly warned Cheney he would -- in a safe in case anyone in the future might challenge his version of what happened. Rockefeller proved prophetic. Yesterday the 21-year Senate veteran from West Virginia released his copy of the letter -- which when written, was so sensitive he dared not allow a staffer to read it, let alone type it."

Yes, just a little too prophetic, don't you think?

[topsecretk9]

and I forgot to highlight these 2 paragraphs...that dovetail with TM's earlier Post and the relevant exchange of Sen. Feinstein in which she explains that Rock. did not express his "reservations" because it was classified...apparently he had the foresight to brief some staff members in anticipation of background interviews...

"The letter, whose existence was unknown to Rockefeller's staff, indicated that the three briefers were Cheney, then-CIA Director George J. Tenet and then NSA-Director Michael V. Hayden. The letter said the Senate intelligence committee's chairman, Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), was there, and it indicated, without naming them, the presence of then-Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), the ranking members of the House intelligence committee.

In hindsight, the letter seemed a rejoinder to President Bush's assertions that key congressional leaders were adequately briefed on the expanded NSA program and to his intimation that they did not seriously object. Rockefeller "was frustrated by the characterization that Congress was on board on this," said one official who is close to him and who spoke on background because of the topic's sensitive nature. "Four congressmen, at least one of whom was raising serious concerns, does not constitute being on board."

[clarice]

tS, I mean

[Sue]

I just read an article that said Microsoft had not yet developed a security patch. It also said that you could get the virus by visiting a website that was infected.

[clarice]

In his post on this ts--Thom erred in saying the memo was written in June..but you caught the date right, that magical moment:July 17, 2003. LOL

If you can point me to the Schaefer bit, I'll try my hand at writing it up for broader distribution.

[bushgirlsgonewild]

bushgirlsgonewild told you all over a year ago that Bushit would end up burying himself in a mound of crap over Iraq and now I smell impeachment.

Wohahahahaha.

[bushgirlsgonewild]

And serving in the punk national guard unit so he could hide his coke habit.

[topsecretk9]

Here it is Clarice...the interesting thing is the trepidation editors give in confirming when they the story vs. why they sat on it.

[topsecretk9]

Here it is Clarice...the interesting thing is the trepidation editors give in confirming when they the story vs. why they sat on it.

My prediction? They are satisfied that the money (i.e. book release) angle has taken hold. Stops the hard questions.

[topsecretk9]

Slightly OT, but gotta love JPod

"'WHO AUTHORIZED THE PAIN MEDICATION?' [John Podhoretz]
According to James "Destroying National Security Is My Business" Risen' s new book, President Bush was annoyed to discover that the wounded Abu Zubaydah, the designer of the September 11 attacks, couldn't be squeezed for information because his painkillers were making him incoherent. Hmmm. I just can't wait to see how Andrew "I Hate Torture So Much I Write About It Every Five Seconds In Lurid Detail" Sullivan handles this little tidbit. Here's what I predict: Five different positions in six sentences. Oh, and Andrew, since you'd ask, here's my view: If Abu Zubaydah were still screaming in pain from his injuries nearly three years later, I would consider it not even a moment's justice for the thousands he killed.
Posted at 03:00 PM

[TM]

Welcome back slacker. LOL!

Thanks very much. I was only party deadweight - my secure remote location lacked even basic internet connectivity (and the satellite connection was down - a tree has grown up and now blocks the dish), so I spent a few days in a near-total news blackout.

[clarice]

Lucky man, Thom.

TS, one more question, please..I seem to have missed this: "Wilson acknowledged that he informed Dem Senator"S" of his plan, I mean trip.." Is it from the Vanity Fair piece?

[topsecretk9]

Well TM, if I may...you deserved to take a breather. And you surpassed a 1000 comments to boot!

[topsecretk9]

Clarice...

"Wilson acknowledged that he informed Dem Senator"S" of his plan, I

I believe this was a CNN interview...I have on my laptop...will see, but pretty sure this was in either July 04 or more recently (I think more recent...it was so obviously a little noticed quick CYA-- I think it may have been Larry King, when he mentioned the church newsletter too)

I'll find it.

[topsecretk9]

FOUND IT, W. Blitzer

"WILSON: I had attempted to talk directly to the State Department and to a number of Democratic senators and to get the record corrected. I felt that after it was clear that what the president was referring to in the State of the Union address was Niger, and that the trip that I went on was based upon a transcription of these documents that later were shown to be forgeries."

[clarice]

Thanks..in that permutation it is what I recall..He linked it to his efforts to clear up the 16 words "mistake". Of course, it is another time he referred to the forged docuemtns which he more recently claimed he never saw, doesn't it? P.O.S.

[topsecretk9]

To me Clarice, it is an admission of MANY discussions happening amongst the Democrats and enablers. i.e. monkeys gathering their shit in preparation (sorry so grosso)

[clarice]

Oh, I am sure of that.

Sweetness & Light suggests the NYT held up the story because they thought Plame was enough.

I'm not sure what I think. At the moment I think Risen didn't have much to go on.Perhaps what he had would also have made the leakers clear to anyone who paid attention.

One commentor there thought Kerry believed the story would hurt him and asked them to hold it. I don't think he's smart enough to do that.He has a strategic tin ear.

[Gabriel Sutherland]

What was going through Rockefeller's mind in 2003?

He was "drafting" memos. Remember what he wrote?

The best time to do so will probably be next year, either:

A) After we have already released our additional views on an interim report, thereby providing as many as three opportunities to make our case to the public. Additional views on the interim report (1). The announcement of our independent investigation (2). And (3) additional views on the final investigation. Or:

B) Once we identify solid leads the majority does not want to pursue, we would attract more coverage and have greater credibility in that context than one in which we simply launch an independent investigation based on principled but vague notions regarding the use of intelligence.

So the White House bought a year thanks to Sulzberger and Keller?

[Specter]

what are you smoking bushgirlsgonewild?

Muwahahaha

[topsecretk9]

One commentor there thought Kerry believed the story would hurt him and asked them to hold it.

I actually by this...I don't think he could legitimately deny knowledge...on the issue. He was triangulating to be stronger on the patriot act than Bush (at the time) and eventually handlers concluded the issue would be a "i voted for the war, before I voted against it" moment (which THEY acknowledged was his campaign killer)

that is...after all the leaks...this one turned out to threaten Kerry too. Calculated stop.

[topsecretk9]

that is...after all the leaks...this one turned out to threaten Kerry too.

I meant to say, the "i voted for, before I was against" proved to be mighty effective...wise not to have one more of those...i.e.

I was for a stiffer Patriot Act, before I heard this?

[clarice]

I just don't think he's smart enough..

He'd have figured he could do a fancy nuance dance:I am for stiffer enforcement and stronger, faster action and we can do that within the law, blah balh." He's a mush head in love with his own drivel and can't understand why it doesn't work.

Here's something interesting:

Rich Lowry, citing Truong, notes that to date only one of the named figures in the NSA kerfuffle was found to have exceeded his constitutional powers:Judge Robertson. http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/lowry/lowry200601031523.asp

[topsecretk9]

hmmmm

"B) Once we identify solid leads the majority does not want to pursue, we would attract more coverage and have greater credibility in that context than one in which we simply launch an independent investigation based on principled but vague notions regarding the use of intelligence."

That pretty much spells leak to me, no?

[topsecretk9]

don't think he's smart enough

This is where we disagree (to an extent)

The "Kerry" Campaign is the most "unprincipled" "empty" and "insincere" campaign to date...in that the campaign was not even about "Kerry".... this was a "media manufactured" campaign and Kerry was a "footnote" with a military record. A suit.

It was never about Kerry's being smart, political savvy, anything (and HE STILL hasn't gotten that)...the media just selected the best V E T E R A N they thought would win. They pulled a lot of the weigh.

[clarice]

ts--It does mean leak to me, and I am suspicious..I just don't have a final link to tie it up. Now, he says his staff didn't know..but that's where my suspicions are strongest. The Hill is full of lean and hungry yound folks without a single scruple or the sense they were born with.

And if you're right about Kerry--and lots of what you say makes sense--it wouldn't have been he who pulled the story but his handlers. no? Which one(s).

The man is utterly clueless. (Worse, actually, I think he is mentally ill.)

[noah]

Narcissism is about all he could be charged with...common enough among the political class. Clueless? Of course.

[clarice]

Mac just posted this and it is hilarious:

memo from the NYT to sources

[danking]

linkee no workee...

[danking]

"my secure remote location lacked even basic internet connectivity, so I spent a few days in a near-total news blackout."

Sounds like a great vacation!

Welcome back.

[clarice]

http://www.canticle4leibowitz.com/ Try that

[topsecretk9]

ahem...

"...Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said that Reid is “intensely interested” in intelligence issues and that Reid’s staff is working closely with the Intelligence Committee staff. Reid has also regularly discussed weapons proliferation with former Senate Armed Services Chairman Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), who is now co-chairman of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a charitable organization working to reduce the threat of weapons of mass destruction.

On the staff level, Reid’s aides have organized several meetings between about 50 Democratic aides and a group of national-security experts. The experts who have met with staff members include retired Gen. Wesley Clark, a former NATO supreme allied commander; Rand Beers, who served as foreign policy adviser to Sen. John Kerry’s (D-Mass.) presidential campaign; and Brookings Institution scholars Susan Rice and James Steinberg. Three or four more of these meetings are expected to take place in the next 10 weeks, Democratic aides said.

The purpose of the meetings is to ensure that Democratic “staff has the confidence and tools to support [Democratic] members” of the Senate as they articulate their party’s position on foreign policy and security issues, said a senior Democratic aide familiar with the meetings. “Reid has the feeling that national security is highly important.”

An aide to Pelosi said the House Democratic leadership has organized several meetings between national-security experts and lawmakers and aides. The aide also said that Clark has spoken to the Democratic caucus about how to communicate national-security policies effectively."

[alcibiades]

Clarice and TopSecret: Would you please clarify where that document comes from - I missed the background on it. Is it from Kerry or Rockefeller or someone else?

Also, on a related matter, after all the angst this fall about why the President didn't pursue the Able Danger story more strongly to castigate - heh - his critics - and point out the inadequacies and failures of intel in the Clinton Administration, we finally have the answer.

This NSA kerfuffle clearly overlaps with the datamining approach used in the Able Danger program. And, given the threat of this story being published by the NYTimes hanging, like the sword of Damocles, over the President's head, he didn't want anyone pointing at anything similar. Also, criticism of the Clinton approach to data mining might have been sufficient provocation by NYTimes editors to tip this story into publication. So far, of course, they have refused to say why they did, in fact, publish the story when they did.

I think in this explanation we can also see why Cobweb demanded insistent, blanketing silence on this story - the Administration's desire was to get the very few people discussing Able Danger simply to shut up and go away. And when the story continued, kept alive by the blogosphere, there was a promise of money to intelligence programs favored by Curt Weldon if he would shut up.

The Administration couldn't make public use of the Able Danger story, because an attempt to investigate that might lead media investigators to this NSA story. And keeping the integrity of that program going was far more importan

[clarice]

Very good..Nunn had nothing to do with these scummy tricks. You can bet on that. The group he works with is funded by Ted Turner to buy up nuclear stuff left in the old USSR. But the staffer thing is likely..Again, I do not believe Rockefeller's claim that he never told staff.For one thing he got the Intel committee refashioned so staff was no long picked and accountable to the Committee. He had it restructured so they reported to and worked for individual Senators (hence such monkey business as the memo) and they do have top secret clearances.

[clarice]

Alc, I am not sure which memo you are referring to..In Nov 2003 a secret memo by a committee staffer to Rockefeller detailing how to manipulate the Committee to politicize it for the 2004 election came to light.

It is here:

snake

[alcibiades]

thanks clarice, that was the one.

[maryrose]

I remember that Rockefeller memo and how inappropriate I felt it was to try to politicize what should obviously be one committee that is bipartisan and really looks out for the people. We need some new senators on these intelligence committees, who are above reproach and understand how to keep secrets. This nonsense about a good leak and a bad leak is just spin.

[bushgirlsgonewild]

"...Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

What a LIAR!

And to think that it took 911 to get the asswipe off his butt and start working. The intellegent failyures of the Bush administration and the subsequent traitorous behavior will result in an impeachment in '06.

[noah]

Oh no...like whack a mole...another troll.

[Gary Maxwell]

Please plaese please tell the Democrats in the House to bring forth a motion for impeachment. Please please please.

[TallDave]

bushgirl,

The NSA program is not a roving wiretap.

Sheesh.

[clarice]

Of course, it isn't a roving wiretap, but I beg you let's not repeat the Rider nonsense..Just ignore trolls, please..They are uneducable and just time wasters.

[topsecretk9]

Clarice...you are so right, but this

And to think that it took 911 to get the asswipe off his butt and start working. is just PRICELESS!

[bushgirlsgonewild]

The 'president' wan't referring to only 'roving' wiretaps; he said 'any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order."

Sheeezeee lousizeee son-of-a-beeeezzee

[topsecretk9]

wait, no I'm sorry

The intellegent failyures

this is actually better.

[Rider]

“Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree.”

Hell, even I, Rider, would agree to that question as stated. I'm surprised the number wasn't higher. That's pitiful. Even FISA says the government can do what the poll asked about. The Rasmussen question says nothing about what Bush directed the NSA to do.

[Syl]

Tom

Welcome back! Hope you had a great vacation! But never ever ever do that again!

::just kidding::

Clarice

Thanks for the link to the Lowry article showing us Judge Robertson's judicial branch power grab. Unconstitutional indeed! I had no idea that was the, or perhaps a part of the, backstory on the FISA court judge who resigned.

The little sniveling trolls, such as the recent one above, hate Bush so much that they are willing to trash the constitution to bring him down. Such serious people. Not. They've already proven the separation of powers exists--they've separated critical thinking from their brains.

re Other possible Plame leaks to Times reporters:

The printed evidence for/against is sufficiently vague to warrant further investigation by other reporters. That's for mealymouth who complained way above.

That reporters aren't even curious just demonstrates they've written their own narrative and are sticking to it. The incompetence and failure of the press to dig into the bigger picture surrounding the big questions of our times since the '70's harms us more than anything a single president may do or not do.

[topsecretk9]

Good to see that Rider is not disingenuous when it comes to citing polls!

[bushgirlsgonewild]

Ohhh got ya, yeah, got ya on that one. Wooo, all net from the 3-point line, YEAH! Got YA!

Timeout retardicans as they argue with the ref.

We'll take this unnecessary timeout for a word from our sponser.

[clarice]

Professional courtesy,Syl..LOL

[bushgirlsgonewild]

Since when are public opinion polls important in situations involving civil liberties?

Mob rule is the antithesis of civil liberties, don't you understand that?

God, conservatives want to shred the Constitution and have lynch mobs decide what is legal!

Ohhh got ya, yeah, got ya on that one. Wooo, all net from the 3-point line, YEAH! Got YA again! Swish!

[PeterUK]

Bushgirlgonewild,

"The intellegent failyures " You Ellie May Clampett or what?

[Syl]

Let's put this very simply. If FISA inhibits the Executive from exercising its powers of conducting surveillance to identify persons contacted by foreign agents who are planning harm to US citizens and to discern the plots and networks, then FISA is unconstitutional.

Perhaps we should impeach Congress!

[maryrose]

TM,
You came back just in time before we got at each other's throats. It is great to get away from it all and I hope you had a nice vacation.
Syl,
I totally agree about the press,the fix is in and nobody is man enough to step up and reveal the truth. Very disappointing, but alas, not surprising for the MSM.

[PeterUK]

Syl,
It would seem to be a very deleterious negligence on behalf of the legislative branch.

[clarice]

Risen's sources not always that reliable and not cross checked..http://thomasjoscelyn.blogspot.com/2006/01/about-your-sources-mr-risen.html

Oh, well, it's the MOTIVE that counts--they're all anti-Bush.

[maryrose]

clarice,
Thanks for referencing Lowry's article, it's amazing what havoc judicial overreach can cause. Thank God for checks and balances, when they followed.

[Cecil Turner]

. . . the Administration's desire was to get the very few people discussing Able Danger simply to shut up and go away.

Yep, that reaction makes a lot more sense, now. It is also vastly amusing to see the lefties touting this as a viable political issue. This response to the Rasmussen poll was typical:

And may I also add that the poll question has nothing to do with the current scandal. It says nothing about whether the administration should be able to break the law in doing such eavesdropping, nor whether the administration should be permitted to do such eavesdropping without having first obtained a court order. [emphasis in original]

The contentions of proven illegality, or that obtaining a FISA-approved court order in those cases is feasible, are both ludicrous. The Rasmussen question was the only one that matters, and the response was overwhelming, even among Democrats:

Eighty-one percent (81%) of Republicans believe the NSA should be allowed to listen in on conversations between terror suspects and people living in the United States. That view is shared by 51% of Democrats and 57% of those not affiliated with either major political party.

You'd think Dems smart enough to read a poll would avoid this issue like the plague. Amazingly, it looks like they're going to try to educate the electorate instead.

[clarice]

And it's not a complicated financial matter like White water--LOL--Geez they are stupid.

Powerline shows how Dean has jumped into this with both feet in his mouth again.Dean/Pelosi and Reid the latest version of The Three Stooges.

[maryrose]

Should be "when they are followed.
Just caught part of Andrea Mitchell's interview with Risen.
memorable quotes:
Mitchell: Are you willing to go to jail to protect your sources?
Risen: " I'd rather not think about that."

[maryrose]

Dean,Pelosi,Reid,
Hear No Evil,
See No Evil
Speak No Evil-But in Dean's case that doesn't apply which proves the rule.

[Specter]

Clarice.

Thanks for the link to the Liebowitz blog article/satire. That was truly funny.

bushgirls,

You might try reading the news once in a while. You are so far behind.....

[Extraneus]

Cecil Turner: "You'd think Dems smart enough to read a poll would avoid this issue like the plague. Amazingly, it looks like they're going to try to educate the electorate instead."

I agree. It's so dumb that it makes me wonder who's caught in the trap. Seems like somebody pretty important must be sweating right now.

[Specter]

Extraneus,

Do we think the Demoncrats are dumb? Well - look who they placed in charge of the National Party - Howlin' Howie! That says it all....

[clarice]

First Rove arranges for Abramoff to talk so that he can hone down the federal government to 2 branches and then Risen falls into the honey trap and makes it likely there'll be just one party.%^).

[clarice]

I call that reducing the federal government. %^)

[maryrose]

Extraneus,
Which pretty important person could it be?
HARRY rEID IS GOING TO SPEAK AT A dAILY kOS MEETING.
bRING IN THE USUAL SUSPECTS.

[boris]

Amazingly, it looks like they're going to try to educate the electorate instead.

It seems too easy to counter their spin. Reasonable people are going to get that with a legal wiretap on the local crime boss the FBI can monitor a call to the out of state hitman, alias Lefty Icepick, without also having a warrant on Lefty. Just need to point out that NSA surveillance of terror suspects is necessary and legal so anybody communicating with them is fair game.

[Rider]

Eighty-one percent (81%) of Republicans believe the NSA should be allowed to listen in on conversations between terror suspects and people living in the United States.

That's more like it. But it should have been 100%, because FISA itself says that. Nothing in the question, nada, zip, zilch even hints that this is without FISA warrants, court orders, or sworn certifications to a FISA judge. The only thing asked there is whether the taps should be legal. Well, of course they are if you get a FISA warrant. FISA-Patriot Act was written into law so that the government could surveil terror suspects talking to USPERS.

What appalling mendacity to try and foist this poll off on the public as supporting what the President has been doing.

You have been bamboozled by this idiotic poll because it perfectly reflects your own all-too-familiar false dilemma argument. You are so full of kool-aid now you actually believe a person must either agree with Bush's no-warrant surveillance of American citizens, or else believe that surveilling terrorists is against the law if they are talking to Americans. Tommyrot, bunkum, and codswallop!

[danking]

Clarice thanks for the fixed link.

"Screwed, Blued and Tattooed. Sorry." LOL!

I continue to enjoy hearing all the explanations as to why the Plame link was bad for National Security and the NSA link was good for National Security (oops, I mean bad for civil rights. )

I'm surprised no one has asked Hillary why she's been so quiet on the subject. I guess she's been too busy planning on how she'll use Presidential Orders.

[Sue]

I want democrats to explain to the public how it is in our best interest to stop NSA from monitoring phone calls to and from terrorists. Whether there is a warrant or not. In reality, no one really knows what happened. Once you get past the shocking headlines, the meat of the stories is meatless.

[maryrose]

My last post of the night- Rider give it a rest

[Rider]

I want the Bush administration to explain why it needs to trample the Fourth Amendment in order to conduct signals intelligence against American citizens on communications links that are no longer even used by terrorists except for planting disinformation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/30/AR2005123001594_pf.html

[boris]

The Bush administration doesn't care what someone wants who apologized for calling Hitler a neoconservative because it's an insult to Nazis.

[Rider]

Still haven't gotten your prescription refilled yet, boris?